Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

Just a question. How does the Republican party get to be called "conservative" ( "to use or manage (natural resources) wisely; preserve; save" )? It seems so innapropriate, considering that whenever a Rep is in the drivers seat, this country spends money like never before.

Then, when a Dem hits the White House, our nation seems to pull the belt tightly, in order to "pay-off" the unrealistic debt that the Republican "conservativeness" accrues.

I understand that the term "conservative" is not intended to represent any financial tendancies, but I find it amazing that the "conservative" party always seems to sell our nations wealth.

Not quite as mind-boggling, is the use of the term "liberal" ("favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties." ) in regards to the party that is actually better known for their unchallenged ability to make restrictions on the nation.

It seems to me, that the two-party system is offering me a "Conservative", whos only redeeming quality is being less-willing (Far from unwilling) to further restrict the civil liberties of americans, and a "Liberal", whos only bright spot is that they repair astronomical debt situations.

So do I vote for having my country sold? Or to forfiet my individual freedoms?

I think the decision comes down to this... Either way, it seems that restricting my freedoms has become popular with both sides of the "aisle", while one, at least, tends to work on buying this country back from our "lenders".

It is similar to asking me if I would prefer to be beaten with a hammer, or an aluminum baseball bat.

As for the saying that you vote for the incumbent if your life has improved over the past regime... A.) I think this was intended for the politically ignorant. B.) This notion promotes selfish agenda, which further diminishes afinity for the concepts of community and union. (Which, for me, is a bigger problem in this country, than the threat of becoming a welfare state.

I would prefer to live in a country that has to force the "well-off" to aid the less fortunate, than to live where only the lucky few can enjoy life.

I do not trust people to "do the right thing" if left to their own accord. Man has inhabitted this planet for many generations, and every one of them has shown that when men are given the opportunity to "do the right thing", they don't.

This generation is doing it right now. Shipping peoples jobs off to Asian and Mexico, because they can pay those employees far below what a working member of any society needs to make an honest living is only one example.

Republicans, by a base theory, lean towards a lack of "big government" in favor of citizens grouping together. Yet labor unions, the exact definition of citizens grouping together, are the enemy of the G.O.P.

Basically, I'm just saying that I will choose the baseball bat. Rather that means Clinton or Obama, the hammer is just too sharp. (Especially with that claw on the one side. Lol.)

MAN, why does everyone seem to love to throw the term "ignorant" around. Just because I may not agree with a viewpoint I don't revert to calling names. Even hiddin under the guise of "informativeness".

Outside of that word, that was a very good post 31.

THAT quarterback is NOT a Pro Bowl quarterback. Never was and never will be.

MAN, why does everyone seem to love to throw the term "ignorant" around. Just because I may not agree with a viewpoint I don't revert to calling names. Even hiddin under the guise of "informativeness".

Outside of that word, that was a very good post 31.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to use it to insult anyone. I meant it in the literal form. As, if you don't know about politics, then you should just vote the incumbant if your situation has improved during their past term, and against them if your situation hasn't improved.

I wasn't insenuating that anyone is ignorant. Just that I think that saying was intended for those who are actually ignorant of politics.

MAN, why does everyone seem to love to throw the term "ignorant" around. Just because I may not agree with a viewpoint I don't revert to calling names. Even hiddin under the guise of "informativeness".

Outside of that word, that was a very good post 31.

I didn't think he was talking about anyone in particular.

Originally Posted by chief31

Sorry. I wasn't trying to use it to insult anyone. I meant it in the literal form. As, if you don't know about politics, then you should just vote the incumbant if your situation has improved during their past term, and against them if your situation hasn't improved.

I wasn't insenuating that anyone is ignorant. Just that I think that saying was intended for those who are actually ignorant of politics.

I agree, being ignorant about something inhibits the opportunity to make good decisions.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to use it to insult anyone. I meant it in the literal form. As, if you don't know about politics, then you should just vote the incumbant if your situation has improved during their past term, and against them if your situation hasn't improved.

I wasn't insenuating that anyone is ignorant. Just that I think that saying was intended for those who are actually ignorant of politics.

I figured as much. Just seems like everytime one of my viewpoints gets brought up the words ignorant and moron keep showing up around it. Kind of hard not to pick up on the correlation. Even when it is unintended.

THAT quarterback is NOT a Pro Bowl quarterback. Never was and never will be.

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.